Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ukraine War... How much will S&P drop this week?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by sealion1 View Post

    Kamban this isn't to rag on you, I mean I essentially feel the same way. I'm not Ukrainian and I certainly don't want to lose my family or what I've worked for fighting a war for something/someone that doesn't affect me directly.

    Sadly this is also what many said as Hitler made his moves and countless other examples in history exist.

    If today, Putin said, give me Lithuania or I will launch all my nukes and I don't care what happens to Russia what should we do? Do we risk MAD for a tiny NATO country? 99% of me wants to scream no, just let him take it. The last 1%, probably what some of the more philosophical amongst us would ascribe to as that associated with the religious/mythological/self actualized man would stand for his principles and have no fear. Who knows how it ends?
    I am pro USA. But I am also a realist and we should know which fights are worth getting into

    If there is an agreement we are bound by it,whether it is a 1% Lithuania or a 30% Germany. But if we do not have a signed contract that requires us to defend a country, we should not jump in like fools where angels don't like to tread. I think Ukraine is one such country. I feel bad for the common citizens and it has become a puppet in the power struggle but its leaders, both past and present are not clean as a whistle. We also get to hear filtered news that is tailored to to suit us. The previous president was corrupt but pro Russian. I don't know if the current one is corrupt but I do believe some of his followers have attacked people who are slanted more pro Russian. I think there is a tribal mentality in that country.

    I am more worried about our wishy-washy stance towards Taiwan. We guarantee its freedom and yet do not recognize it as China or even as a separate country with full diplomatic relations, for fear of offending China. And China has said that their ultimate goal is reunification. So what will happen when that day comes. Do we send in our 7th fleet and put on an Air show but do not put boots in the ground. Or will be send in hundreds of troops. Will we risk a limited or full scale nuclear war?

    A few years ago Russia was a washed out former superpower and China was our threat. Suddenly we are closer to China and Russia is the bad wolf but I am not sure if the tables will be turned in 5 years. And we find that Putin and Xi are close and China not only did not condemn this invasion but also blamed USA for fanning the fire with NATO eastern expansion.

    In diplomacy there are no long term friends..

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/b...=pocket-newtab

    Comment


    • I think that we are going to see how this evolves on a global scale over the next couple of years. World War III likely won’t break out overnight. I think Putin is willing to go further than we think with the rest of the countries he has plans for. Next time, maybe we won’t be so naive. It’s funny to look back on this, and other events in history. WW2?…. How did the world let it get so far out of hand?

      When you look at some of Russia’s fake outs and deceptions before the invasion, they look comical in retrospect. The guy must have been saying to himself, “All you have do do is lie right to their face about life and death gambles, and they give you the benefit of the doubt, and not prepare at all….. wow!”

      It’s good that the majority of the world has lined up one sided against this, even if they are a little in denial, and think they can choose the painless route for this crisis, as usual. The best outcome would be clamp down, isolate Russia, and pray for a rebellion. Let’s hope it works.

      I can’t help but think that this is how Zelensky will feel tonight.



      But it’s only a fairytale, originally written by a man with battle experience in WWI. There will be no assistance to honor past allegiances, no Rohirrim to ride to the rescue in this story. Years from now, they will build a statue in Kiev to pay tribute to Zelensky.


      Last edited by Jaqen Haghar MD; 03-01-2022, 11:27 AM.

      Comment


      • Would someone please let Biden know:
        If you decide to put US armed forces in harms way, they need direct orders to “fight to win.”
        That means “shoot to kill”.
        No messaging or other objectives. No orders to “take one for the team”. Win baby win. Half baked is the wrong choice.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dont_know_mind View Post
          Not send troops, threaten to send troops (or at least have that as a live option), there is a difference.
          I am not saying the US should send troops, I am saying every engagement is different. The narrative is that the US cannot send troops because of the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Maybe Putin interprets that as, "there will be no NATO involvement without messaging to their population that they may". Anyway, when you say you're not sending troops from the start, that's one deterrent you've removed. Why take that away, when it costs nothing.
          It is half-baked, half-hearted threats such as this that would not only make the situation significantly worse and more complicated for everyone, but are partly to blame for Putin's perception of American weakness here in the first place.

          See: Obama and his little red line in Syria.

          And any diplomat worth his salt--or any parent at all--knows that you don't make threats you are not ready to follow through on, lest you be called out and face the decision of having to actually send those troops or withhold that happy meal.

          Regarding the deterrents, well, I'm not really sure those are all that effective in this particular situation anyway. Certainly not previous wimpy "sanctions," and definitely not empty threats.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kamban View Post
            In diplomacy there are no long term friends..
            There are no friends at all. Only common enemies and common interests.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tim View Post
              Would someone please let Biden know:
              If you decide to put US armed forces in harms way, they need direct orders to “fight to win.”
              That means “shoot to kill”.
              No messaging or other objectives. No orders to “take one for the team”. Win baby win. Half baked is the wrong choice.
              There's no other way to shoot.

              But I'd prefer someone let him know to keep US armed forces out of harm's way to begin with. At least in Ukraine.

              Comment


              • Can anyone explain why Russia doesn't have air superiority yet? Seems odd in 2022 to be first rolling all these tanks anywhere

                Comment


                • Originally posted by sealion1 View Post

                  This statement encompasses why history continues to repeat itself and unless there is a significant evolution to us as a society or species nothing will really change.

                  Kamban this isn't to rag on you, I mean I essentially feel the same way. I'm not Ukrainian and I certainly don't want to lose my family or what I've worked for fighting a war for something/someone that doesn't affect me directly.

                  Sadly this is also what many said as Hitler made his moves and countless other examples in history exist.

                  If today, Putin said, give me Lithuania or I will launch all my nukes and I don't care what happens to Russia what should we do? Do we risk MAD for a tiny NATO country? 99% of me wants to scream no, just let him take it. The last 1%, probably what some of the more philosophical amongst us would ascribe to as that associated with the religious/mythological/self actualized man would stand for his principles and have no fear. Who knows how it ends?
                  Within 30 years Putin will be dead from natural causes. If the human species lives another 500 years, they won’t remember this conflict or care. Time will work all our disagreements out as long as we survive as a species. If nukes are used, intelligent life will be dead on our planet forever.

                  IMO our only goal should be to try to avoid
                  escalation to nuclear weapons. Not trying to save Ukraine. That does not mean I’m for appeasement because appeasement may increase the risk of conflict. But it also does not mean doing anything that is likely to increase the use of military force.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by childay View Post
                    Can anyone explain why Russia doesn't have air superiority yet? Seems odd in 2022 to be first rolling all these tanks anywhere
                    I think we all know why. I can see sending the least amount of equipment or your crappiest equipment you think you’ll need but it’s been clear for many days that the equipment you’ve sent isn’t going to cut it. I think the equipment we’re seeing is about as good as it gets for them. I’m not sure what’s worse, their equipment or their strategists.

                    Comment


                    • This invasion with the resultant sanctions looks like a disaster for the Russian economy. That's the problem with these dictatorships/autocrats. They may work well when the leader in their prime and somewhat aware of their people's needs/not surrounded by sycophants. Over time though, I would imagine most autocrats get less attached to reality and looking out for whatever needs their people have. That's why Russia and China and several of these other countries ruled by autocrats are only going to get more dangerous as their leaders age. The reasons for this war seem absurd. By invading an eastern European country, the Russians seem to have accelerated and justified the growth of NATO rather then contracting it. The whole reason for NATO was to prevent this kind of thing from happening to it's member states. The scary part about these countries acting more erratic is that no degree of air superiority/superior tanks/military/etc is going to matter very much in a nuclear conflict.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by nephron View Post
                        This invasion with the resultant sanctions looks like a disaster for the Russian economy...
                        Eh, it all depends what time frame you are looking at.

                        Sure, so US and UK and others have said they won't fight in Ukraine. We know about the sanctions. Russia has been sanctioned more than Pete Rose and Roger Clemens combined ever since the USSR days. Russia will now have deflation and it will be hard for their people to buy much outside their own country (newsflash: it already has been that way for most Balkan and former USSR countries since USSR breakup anyways... they function low gear in comparison to 'high' north and east Europe, basically like central and south America do in comparison to North). Not as much as you might think will change economically.

                        Ukraine will obviously continue to burn and turn into a tough occupation project of Russia rebuilding. They will face guerilla bomb and vandal attacks on both the Russian occupancy forces as well as any remaining decent Ukraine resources (mines, petro rigs, airstrips, factories, good farm lands, etc) as those occur sporadically. That won't last forever, though. History is written by the victors.

                        Fast forward a generation (probably even 10yrs), and Ukraine will be somewhat rebuilt and the resources will be tapped once again. Universities will pop up, hospitals , factories, parks renewed, etc etc. Look at Germany or other countries that were absolute rubble just a couple of decades later. Hiroshima, Warsaw, London... the list goes on and on. Just like individual humans with money, tribes of humans are obsessed with building yet freak out when there is any bit of some backwards progress. Maybe they will build statues of not Putin for invading but of Joe Biden for not interfering in the Kyiv (whatever the new name is) town square or main library?

                        The point is that it's not 1800s anymore. Decent and productive land is not easy to get.I don't think Trump ever bought Greenland? Ukraine could end up being a 'spend money to make money' thing. The story is far from over.
                        Last edited by Max Power; 03-01-2022, 09:01 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bovie View Post

                          It is half-baked, half-hearted threats such as this that would not only make the situation significantly worse and more complicated for everyone, but are partly to blame for Putin's perception of American weakness here in the first place.

                          See: Obama and his little red line in Syria.

                          And any diplomat worth his salt--or any parent at all--knows that you don't make threats you are not ready to follow through on, lest you be called out and face the decision of having to actually send those troops or withhold that happy meal.

                          Regarding the deterrents, well, I'm not really sure those are all that effective in this particular situation anyway. Certainly not previous wimpy "sanctions," and definitely not empty threats.
                          I think if the stance is that it is not an option to send troops then it shouldn’t be messaged, because it gives your opponent information.

                          I think the war situation is not like teaching a child. The consistency is only needed for the public and voters. The US is constrained in the military realm, but unconstrained in the financial/sanction realm, because the latter is ok with the voters.

                          I think the situation is more like bidding for a house, a boxing match or any competitive situation where you are facing off opponent(s).

                          Putin doesn’t care for consistency. He said he was removing his troops from exercises in the area and then did the reverse. Yes, you can lie to try to catch your opponent off guard. I am not even suggesting this, but that messaging that you won’t be using an upper cut, is not helpful to winning a fight.

                          I have no idea about Syria. I turned off after Iraq I. It was not a existential threat to the US.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by nephron View Post
                            This invasion with the resultant sanctions looks like a disaster for the Russian economy. That's the problem with these dictatorships/autocrats. They may work well when the leader in their prime and somewhat aware of their people's needs/not surrounded by sycophants. Over time though, I would imagine most autocrats get less attached to reality and looking out for whatever needs their people have. That's why Russia and China and several of these other countries ruled by autocrats are only going to get more dangerous as their leaders age. The reasons for this war seem absurd. By invading an eastern European country, the Russians seem to have accelerated and justified the growth of NATO rather then contracting it. The whole reason for NATO was to prevent this kind of thing from happening to it's member states. The scary part about these countries acting more erratic is that no degree of air superiority/superior tanks/military/etc is going to matter very much in a nuclear conflict.
                            “NATO is a like a massive insurer, a protector of national security for Europe and the United States. After the end of the Cold War, we still thought that we had the best insurance for the hazards we could face — flood, fire etc. — but for a discounted premium. We didn’t take adequate steps to address and reduce the various risks. We can now see that that we didn’t do our due diligence and fully consider all the possible contingencies, including how we would mitigate Russia’s negative response to successive expansions. Think about Swiss Re or AIG or Lloyds of London — when the hazard was massive, like during Hurricane Katrina or the global financial crisis in 2008, those insurance companies got into major trouble. They and their clients found themselves underwater. And this is kind of what NATO members are learning now.”

                            https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...there-00012340

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by nephron View Post
                              This invasion with the resultant sanctions looks like a disaster for the Russian economy. That's the problem with these dictatorships/autocrats. They may work well when the leader in their prime and somewhat aware of their people's needs/not surrounded by sycophants. Over time though, I would imagine most autocrats get less attached to reality and looking out for whatever needs their people have. That's why Russia and China and several of these other countries ruled by autocrats are only going to get more dangerous as their leaders age. The reasons for this war seem absurd. By invading an eastern European country, the Russians seem to have accelerated and justified the growth of NATO rather then contracting it. The whole reason for NATO was to prevent this kind of thing from happening to it's member states. The scary part about these countries acting more erratic is that no degree of air superiority/superior tanks/military/etc is going to matter very much in a nuclear conflict.
                              I fear Putin's calculus is:

                              Best case scenario, he wins in Ukraine, sanctions lift, he goes down in history as Russia's Putin the Great

                              Intermediate scenario: He's losing in Ukraine, threaten's total nuclear war (which as many in this forum have already pointed rationally state, they would avoid at all costs). Everyone backs down. He dies shortly after thinking to himself that he was a total boss

                              Worst case scenario: He's losing in Ukraine. It's a lose lose. He's either going to die because he's going to be deposed. Or he dies from age/disease going down in history as the man who destroyed Russia's future. So what's the best alternative? He dies as the man who destroyed the west by mass nuclear holocaust and achieving what the USSR never did.

                              Now imaging if he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by sealion1 View Post

                                I fear Putin's calculus is:

                                Best case scenario, he wins in Ukraine, sanctions lift, he goes down in history as Russia's Putin the Great

                                Intermediate scenario: He's losing in Ukraine, threaten's total nuclear war (which as many in this forum have already pointed rationally state, they would avoid at all costs). Everyone backs down. He dies shortly after thinking to himself that he was a total boss

                                Worst case scenario: He's losing in Ukraine. It's a lose lose. He's either going to die because he's going to be deposed. Or he dies from age/disease going down in history as the man who destroyed Russia's future. So what's the best alternative? He dies as the man who destroyed the west by mass nuclear holocaust and achieving what the USSR never did.

                                Now imaging if he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer...
                                I think it's more likely that this is more psychiatric and he's just lost touch with reality through isolation and being around his inner circle.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X